What's your theory on giving out 10-10 rounds?

I think yesterday's Martinez/Williams fight is another example of why 10-10 rounds should be given out more often in boxing. The reality is, they almost never happen. But don't you guys think it should? Doing this would ensure that the clearer rounds would decide the fight.

 

Yeah, and i think that's a problem. Why are judges so hesitant to simply give out a 10-10 round if the action is too close to call?

I'm with Merchant on this. I've called a lot of fights 10-10 just the way Merchant has in a lot of 1st round of fights.

 

:good That's just one of the reasons why i like Merchant.

Another reason is his funny quotes. When Hopkins was fighting Taylor in their first fight, he said, "At one time, Hopkins was a lion who hunted down his prey. Now, he's a lion who hides in the weeds and waits for his prey to walk by." So true.

 

I don't. I score it the way i see it. I just think giving a round that is too close to call to one fighter is simply unfair. The POINT of scoring a fight is to proplerly evaluate who wins a fight. That doesn't mean one has to score a round 10-9. You can give out 10-10 rounds. And in that way, the winner will have "earned" the victory instead of getting some favorable rounds which were too close to call.

I just don't see why judges are so averse to giving out 10-10 rounds. Are they afraid that their scores will end up a draw? Well, mathematically, it really doesn't matter if you give out 10-10 rounds or 10-9 rounds.

 

Yeah, but my point is that it doesn't matter if you score rounds 10-10 or 10-9. The chances of a fight being a draw is the same either way. You can give score the first 11 rounds of a fight 10-10 and score the 12th at 10-9 and you would have a winner.

It just bothers me to see rounds that are so close given to one guy. Those close rounds in close fights usually decide most fights. Why not let the clear rounds decide the fights?

 

Well, those are much more extreme examples of scoring.

 

And what's up with judges all being like 70? I think we need younger judges who will actually move once in a while to get a better close up of the action and not just sit like robots and not care about the action that is obstructed from their view. If i were a judge, i would probably require walking room on my side so i'm on top of the action. And i'm being serious.